Why, is it in the game of chess, that the King can never be captured? The game end when the King is faced with unavoidable doom.
The real question is - what's the difference?
If the King can't move, then the next step would be removing him.
And, of course, the King is Game!
well i guess its as simple as the fact that the king can not put himself in peril(check). So a situation where a player accidently puts his king in check and your next move is to take it,won't happen because you must inform your opponent he made an illegal move with his king and must choose another. If you check the king and he has no where to move(checkmate) the game is over because according to the rules the king must move when checked, or the check must be blocked by another piece. So if the king cannot move then the next obvious move is to capture the king,but that is not necessary since you and your opponent know the game is inevitably over. I tried to explain that the best I could without sounding ridiculous.
King's use pawns to attack. Only THE king can defend himself. There always others for the king. That's the nature of it.
Because, when disposing of a monarch, it is in poor taste to actually kill him. Much better to get him to abdicate...makes for a smoother transition of power!
Abdicate..? I think I would prefer if the king had to be captured for victory. There would be a question regarding castling through check. You are allowed to move other pieces through an attack. That would still be an oddball rule for the king that could be removed if we were changing the rules. Removing "check" from the game would allow a person to move his king into check accidentally and have it taken. I know that I make occasional mistakes in my game leaving a piece unintentionally hanging and in danger (amateur I know.) That would merely be another thing to look for in the game. If we're taking a vote, let's take the politics out and if the people raise their arms they can depose the king. (hurahhh heard chanted by the crowd in the background.)